Why liberals believe that all rich people are rich because they steal from the poor?
How can a grown ass human not understand how wealth is created?
>>1129173
>liberals
>logic
>>1129173
B-because most people get rich selling stuff made by poor people to other poor people?
I'm not necessarily defending the viewpoint but you have to be pretty stupid to not be able to see why they believe what they do.
Rent
>>>/pol/
WHY IS THIS POSTED HERE
>muh libruls are ruining the country!
It's because the system is fixed to keep the rich rich, and keep the rest of us serfs.
They're hording the wealth of Earth, a handful of powerful families pointing around at everyone going "You ALL owe US"
In reality we're all on this planet as equals. Does that clear anything up for you? Probably not.
>>1129207
>It's because the system is fixed to keep the rich rich, and keep the rest of us serfs.
How so?
>>1129213
Well the people with the money make the laws, to benefit them, at the expense of the rest of us.
>>1129201
thats printed from trees
>>1129216
And what examples do you have of laws benefiting the wealthy at the expense of "the rest of us"? And who do you define as "the rest of us?" Who do you define as the rich?
>>1129233
Extending copyright to 70-years after the author's death comes to mind.
>>1129207
no its not idiot. You have the same system as those rich people the difference is they used it to their advantage where as your poor ass only complains on the Internet.
>>1129251
I responded to a thread that directly asked the question. I don't really expect much of a discussion on it.
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8335.htm
Two laws, one in 1982 and one in 2004, changed stock buyback laws to allow companies to buyback practically unlimited quantities of their stock. This incentivized CEOs to boost their stock prices through market manipulation instead of R&D, labor retention, and attaining market share through better quality product. This is also why most American automakers today suck.
So, in a sense, the liberals aren't entirely wrong as both of those laws were approved by republican presidents. However, I don't think taxing the shit out of the rich will help as much as fixing basic finance regulation related to market fixing and reworking the budget to serve the people more.
>>1129233
I honestly have about zero need to convince you right now.
Not defending him, but being rich is a lot easier when your daddy makes good money. Trump is an excellent example as his family was already rich.
>>1129173
Read Marx.
Broadly speaking, the investors(shareholders, company owners) buy physical captial(factories, computers, warehouses) and get workers to work the physical captial, thus producing goods and services. They own whatever surplus profit and use it to buy more physical captial, expanding their business and so on.
Wealth gain is significantly systemic. Do you think that Carlos Slim contributed millions more times to the economy than the average person?
>>1129288
>Wouldn't that law be easy to circumvent?
Surprisingly, not really. I mean, it's the volumes that are a problem. You can't really stop insider trading, you can try though.
We're talking CEOs taking out massive loans in terms of billions of dollars, using that money to buyback their stock (this is called market manipulation in most countries), and then dumping when interest rates rise again. This is why the stock market dropped when good macroeconomic figures were released last year; people were afraid the rates would rise and the buybacks would stop. The stock market follows a pump&dump cycle and doesn't mirror the real economy well anymore.
>>1129173
Because the comparative income of the top 20% of the 1% has doubled in the last 20 years, while middle class has slightly fallen competitively.
All wealth is created by exploiting other people. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, its just survival of the fittest. But don't kid yourself.
We have this thread every day.
The wealthy primarily make their money through asset inflation rather than creating any real value. By speculating in real-estate and on the stock market they simply raise the price of goods which other people need, and then skim that extra money off from the inflated price as profit. They're a net burden on economic activity.
He hasn't got a chance of winning. Why even discuss him?
>he fell for the richfag meme
Richfags:
90% are rich because of luck, rich parents, good education (paid by parents), good looks/genetics and a combination of these
10% are rich because of hard work, determination and attitude or a combination of these
>>1129267
This. That derp is just going to ask questions in circles until you get tired of repeating yourself or come to a point where you don't have an exact number (how much is enough?), allowing them to declare it unknowable and thus handwave all resulting problems away as "God's will" or some other lazy cop out.
>>1129251
>rich
>poor
>same system
spoken like a true bourgeois.
sure must be lucky having greatgreagreatgreargrandad sinclaire strike big in an oil mill. he was in the same system.
cut to 300 years later and youre shitting out philosophy on a vietnamese checkers board while you never work a day in your life. meanwhile everyone else scrounges to survive.
what universe do you have to live in where the rich and poor operate in the "same system"? who can honestly tell themselves that a Mexican immigrant with no cash and no name is on equal footing with squillium bootstrap mcwellington, born with a promise of free education and good job prospects with minimal effort on their end.
>>1129620
git gud at life and make your way to the top. Invest in real estate and stocks and don't get married.
>>1129607
Jesus.
>>1129620
>equal footing
"All men are created equal," refers to the way we treat our fellow man. It has nothing to do with equal footing. There will never be a system where everyone leads identical lives (I hope.) Get over it
>>1129620
Been proven multiple times that Ralph was able to make it with only $50 to his name.
Been proven mutiple times that America is the only country where one is able to do just that. Yet you have spoiled tards that have no idea what a gun to your face feels like ordered to shoot your own family whin about "MAH FOODSTAMPS", "MAH HEALTHCARE", "BUT DA 1%".
You just want it handed to you is all, cause' life was "unfair" to you one way or another. Now you just feel entitled.
>>1129652
Yes everyone living an equal life will defiently create the next iPod, PC, Light buld, v8, and anything else that has revolutionized America MORE THAN ONCE.
You know that word "innovation"?
If I have everything given to me, what the fuck is the point of thinking outside the box to get more? Common sense 101 you don't have apparently.
>>1129285
>read Marx
Stopped reading right there
>>1129666
>satanic trips
Except those things were created by engineers, not bankers.
>>1129666
Reading comprehension 101 you dont have apparently
>>1129672
Yes bankers didn't pay loans for the CEO who was giving those engineers an incentive to create; which would be money provided by the bankers.
You're correct.
>>1129678
Reading comprehension 101, which you don't have apparently.
>>1129173
They don't
source: I'm a liberal
>itt peasant fags deluding themselves and protecting the rights of the rich because they think they will one be among them
you won't
>>1129638
>>1129652
>>1129661
it's always the same variety of "get over it" when it comes to such a blatantly obvious issue as inequality. everyone suffers from it, including the most insanely wealthy and power hungry.
Wealth inequality is actually good in essence when there truly is enough ground to stand on for the poor and unmotivated to wallow while the truly motivated have a chance to move past low-middle. Thing is inequality is so insane that even the motivated are forced to wallow and no longer have the luxury to make the large sacrifices necessary to invest in themselves or their communities or businesses properly.
It just doesn't follow any logic beyond the short term. As the greedy sociopathic assholes you are, clearly you'd agree its better to give the poor an extra 3% of your taxes to prevent them from waking up and demanding 15%? so short minded and money hungry the answer for the wealthiest is so easily ignored. everybody fucking wins when everyone has stable ground to stand on.
>He thinks that rich people don't lie and steal and also didn't get lucky.
How cuckolded do you get, exactly?
>>1129285
>Marxists can't do exponential math
Unless we're talking Rothchilds & co the game is not fixed
>>1129585
ov yey
>>1129173
Well I think the important think is give someone a chance for live like an honorable human being by helping them with their basic human needs and it should be provided by the goverment. But after that, we are all in the same environment, growing your own wealth is up to your own fiscal decisions.
>>1129173
>Why liberals believe that all rich people are rich because they steal from the poor?
They don't. They just want a system where all the wealth doesn't go to 0.01% of the population.
How hard is that to understand?
>>1129967
>there is only so much wealth to go around
This is America. There is unlimited wealth. You're just mad no one is handing it to you
>>1129971
>This is America
Typical American thinks everything revolves around America.
>There is unlimited wealth.
Which gets siphoned off to a tiny, tiny proportion of people due to the institutional structure that's been arranged.
Why not have 1 person own 99.99% of Earth's resources and the entire population and the rest of the world can battle over the 0.01% of Earth's resources? Or are you going to be mad that no one is handing it to you?
>>1129173
In my opinion, those who gain massive amounts of wealth do so by using underhanded, slimy tactics. Hell, Bill Gates just used DOS and manipulated it into what is Windows today. Steve Jobs was an even bigger hack than that. Costco and Whole Foods charge out the ass for products you could get at Walmart, but as long as they slap Customer Service and Organic onto their products, they can get away with it.
I work for a computer repair shop. We charge $100 just to LOOK at your computer, but due to slimy advertising gimmicks and a customer service sticker, we can do so with little to no complaints. Fun fact: when we diagnose, remove a virus, do a maintenance checkup, and so on, we use FREE software like Hirens, Super Anti Spyware, Malwarebytes, and so on to do so.
No doubt that those who reach high numbers of wealth have worked for it, but I honestly believe that those interested in business and making money cannot do so without fucking someone over.
>>1129851
Except that's wrong. The incentive is selling stuff to consumers. Thanks to the financial industry we're transitioning to a system where there's a bigger incentive to simply inflate the values of commodities through market speculation and skim money off the top, rather than actually producing value. The current state of high financialized capitalism is actually detrimental to the forces which used to drive innovation.
>>1129251
you're a fucking moron. keep fighting for the protection of your owners you dumb faggot
>>1129851
jesus christ you're one sick fuck. what a lost cause you are
>>1129906
best post itt
>>1129669
Yeah we know you don't read.
>>1129991p
Thats where you keep going wrong. For some reason you think wealth is a finite resource. But in a capitalist system, wealth is infinite. All your analogies are complete bullshit.
>>1130122
For some reason you are incapable of looking at real life and would rather deal in abstracts.
In the last 40 years, virtually all of productivity's gains have gone to the top 1% or less. You seem to believe that because productivity rises, that production is distributed to people at the bottom. Clearly you don't actually know what is actually going on.
>>1130122
So, if we live in an age of unparallelled wealth and abundance, which I believe we do btw, then we should have a basic guaranteed income for everyone. There doesn't have to be any poverty, we could end that now.
So you're onboard with that then, right?
It's not going to the 1% because they're stealing, it's going to them because they create 90% of the value of any company. They invented the products you use, the processes that make them affordable, the campaign that makes you buy them. If you want money, earn it, quit crying like a beta fucker and create something people actually want. Or you can go back to mom y's basement and cry about it.
>implying the bailout wasn't a massive transfer from the taxpayer to the rich elite
>implying rock-bottom rates aren't benficial to those wealthy enough to invest (including with leverage) and detrimental to common savers
>implying the propping up of the (UK) housing market with govt. policy doesn't entail a massive transfer from average-wealth, young people to a wealthy rentier class.
S M H
Note, these are all interventions causing the problems.
>>1130131
>productivity's gains
You even talk like a commie. How much wealth someone builds is completely up to them. If you want to work at McDonalds your whole life and buy $800 smartphones, dont expect me to feel sorry for you that you arent vastly wealthy. I'm accumulating wealth just fine. In fact, the only things that have slowed me down have been government with over licencing and IRS crap
>>1130139
Sure. If you can tell me who pays for it
>>1130131
>something happened in the 70s
civil rights and massive expansion of the welfare state
All business owners have a strong incentive to maximize profit and minimize overhead. Labor is the biggest single overhead cost for most businesses, and most people must labor to obtain the necessities of a dignified life.
>subcontracting to firms that use slave labor in foreign countries
>using vast financial resources to lobby government to block or ease labor protections
>or lobbying to over regulate a market to block competition
>other assorted rent seeking tactics
>using the legal fiction of the corporation to escape the repercussions of wrongdoing, instead of just insulating personal assets from the risk of a business venture
>avoiding tax while getting cronies in government to handout free gibs like niggers
Obviously not all business can or do use these tactics, but it's rampant enough to make everyone look shitty.
>>1130229
How did you quantify living standards? Where are your facts?
>>1129207
>In reality we're all on this planet as equals. Does that clear anything up for you? Probably not.
>equals
we are not equal by any means. there are lucky people, unlucky people, dumb people, smart people, people that try hard, people that don't try hard, etc.....
this is how the world works and yes people die (they have to) because of it.
The viewpoint I take is that everyone should be able to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't prevent someone else from doing the same. And under our current system, you are free to do that, just like how all the companies around you did
>>1130229
What drugs are you on? None of your posts make much sense or are even comprehensible
You seem to think living standards have not improved for 40 years, yet nearly everyone has access to information now at their fingertips that can be monetized with little to no effort. There was no Craigslist 40 years ago to instantly connect sellers and workers with buyers and hirers.
If you aren't making enough money, do more. The rest of us do not owe you anything
>>1129869
We aren't trying to protect them so we may be one of them.
We look to ourselves for any shortcomings we can address and don't believe punishing those more fortunate or successful will help our own circumstances.
>>1129173
No matter how much effort you put into your work, you CANNOT justify owning ten times more than most people. It is inherently wrong to be rich. The simple fact that you are rich means you steal from the poor, as you unlegitimately own an obscene amount of wealth, enough to feed several families that are during the same time dying because of you being rich.
>>1130468
I bet you have ten times the wealth of your average African. Better give it all away you greedy faggot before we come forcefully take it from you. Why arent you feeding several African families?
>>1130484
Because there exist people in this world that own 10 000 times more than me. They should go first, that's justice.
>>1130468
So if I save 10 times more than somebody who makes the same wages as me I am inherently wrong? They blow all their money on stupid shit and I save mine when it comes time to retirement and I am 10 times richer I'm wrong?
>>1130488
>excuses
who's greedy now faggot? Because of YOU african families are dying
>>1130488
Nope. In the world, you are in the top of the 1%.
You now realize how greedy and childish you sound demanding someone else gives you free money while you pay cellphone and cable bills and go to the movies with money that could be feeding starving children in 3rd world countries
>>1130488
Justice for what? You being worthless? Seems like we should punish you for that, not them.
>>1130505
There is nothing greedy or childish here. I obviously am not in the top 1%, since there are roughly 1 billion occidental people in the world, and I am in the lower half of these.
I just think that everybody should own enough to live with dignity. The most responsible people are people that own the most, and these people own MANY MANY more than regular occidental people.
>>1130520
>has internet access
>lower half
Wow you are delusional you selfish greedy faggot
>>1130511
Let's say A owns 500 000 000 dollars
Let's say B owns 5 000 dollars
Let's say C owns 50 dollars
Who should give money to C? A or B?
>>1130527
Neither. C should work for his money and be paid by whom ever wishes to pay him for his services
>>1130531
A should DEFINITELY give MOST of what he owns, as it is totally obscene to own that much wealth. It is evil incarnate.
>>1130527
C has no value. Nobody should give money to this lazy fucker.
>>1130424
I've already explained the huge gap in the output of the economy and the purchasing power of consumers. This isn't even denied by anybody.
>>1130448
>None of your posts make much sense or are even comprehensible
That would be because you sound economically illiterate. You seem to confuse improvements in technology with improved economic status. This is a fallacy.
>If you aren't making enough money, do more. The rest of us do not owe you anything
This is exactly the attitude why I can't even communicate with you. You actually seem to believe that individuals control outcomes and that institutional structure is somehow irrelevant. Either you're incredibly naive or you're a stooge.
>>1129285
If his capital continually purchased more assets that produced wealth, then yes.
>>1129585
Rather pessimistic, don't you think, given that you basically just say it's all inherited in one way or another (rich parents, paid education from parents, genetics from parents...).
Care to explain, then, where the parents got their wealth from? Or is there an "unearned earner" in your silly chain?
>>1130539
>confuse improvements in technology with improved economic status.
You have beans for brains. The point is it is easier now than it ever had been to do business and make money. If people don't take advantage of this, why should we hand them money?
You teach a man to fish...
>>1130527
Neither
>>1130544
I'll repeat myself, but: no matter how much effort you put into your work, you CANNOT justify owning many more times than other people. No matter what you do, nothing is enough to make moral the fact that you could save many many people and make them happy by a simple gesture, and that you don't.
>>1130539
>seem to believe individuals control outcomes
Yes. They do. What the fuck are you even talking about. You have never had a job or probably earned a dollar in your life. Why are you even on a business board?
>>1130549
>The point is it is easier now than it ever had been to do business and make money.
I like the fact that you've conceded the point and that you are now moving the goalposts to ease of starting a business. It shows how ridiculous your beliefs are.
The vast majority of new businesses fail and most people aren't entrepreneurs, they're workers. I know right now you're going to say something like "Well I started a business and did well" which will prove how limited your thinking is.
>>1130554
You are so stupid and naive.
>>1130552
Where is the line drawn?
We've already established that you have much more than many people on earth. So you give yours away you greedy bastard
>>1130556
Dude you dont have to "start a business." If you're short on money hop on craigslist and do a side job or offer a service. Or does someone have to constantly hold your hand you fucking child.
I'm fairly successful with about 4 revenue streams. Im not rich, but I didnt just sit around complaining my boss didnt pay me enough.
>>1130557
As I already said, richest people should give their wealth first.
I'll give a methodological example. We have 24
people, owning respectively:
A: 500 000 000
B: 5 000 000
C: 1 000 000
D: 500 000
E: 50 000
F: 5 000
G: 4 000
H: 3 000
I: 2 000
J: 1 000
K: 900
L: 800
M: 700
N: 600
O: 500
P: 400
Q: 300
R: 200
S: 100
T: 90
U: 80
V: 70
W: 60
X: 50
Y: 40
Z: 30
A starts by giving money to everybody else except B until he reaches the level of B. So he gives 495 000 000, divided by 22, equal 25 500 000. Now everyone in the sample owns at least 25 500 000, which far enough to live with dignity, and even the most rich people in the sample own less than twice what the poorest owns. So the riches reparititon is now just in the sample.
Of course, in the real world, the sample would contain far more poor people, so the richest people would be far less rich. But the method is as I described: redistribute what the richest own, and then do it again, and again, and again, until everyone owns more or less the same thing. Owning twice as many as someone that never works is the most you should be able to own by working all day long.
And as you saw, with this method, "poor" occidental people shouldn't have to give anything.
>>1130580
Whoops, I meant 26 people, not 24. Whatever, the calculus doesn't change much.
>>1130552
I guarantee most rich folks give more in one donation that your worthless ass has given in your whole life.
>>1130580
The poor don't give anything. They literally just take.
>>1130594
Obviously, many people give a lot more than I even own, as I own peanuts compared to them. However, they are still a lot richer than me, so they should still give more.
>>1130600
As it should be. They take what is rightfully theirs. Everyone has the right to live with minimum comfort.
>>1130580
The problem with this is you're turning people purely into numbers and letters and using that to justify your point without any sort of variables. So tell me, people F-Z, every single one of those people is horribly poor and worked their entire life but never managed to save any money or advance despite trying their hardest? Not one person on there is an asshole that blew all their money on crack or just didn't want to work and decided to hobo it up? And I'm guessing the top three there made all their money enslaving taiwanese children and inheriting from uncle fagwagon, and not one of them spent their time working hard to build up a business and use that money to continually expand their business or invest. You act as though every person with a little more money than you has piles of fucking gold everywhere and that all their assets are liquid and they spend time just bathing in hundred dollar bills.
>>1130580
>implying rich folks arent spending the money and therefore contributing
>implying rich folks arent starting new businesses and therefore creating work places for wage slaves
>implying the government would have money to spend without rich folks
>implying poor people give back/have any value for the market/world
>>1130633
Since you ask: philosophy master
>>1129906
>you'd agree its better to give the poor an extra 3% of your taxes to prevent them from waking up and demanding 15%?
No, the wealthy are NOT going to give into economic extortion based on some implied threat from the poor. If the poor act like terrorists, don't be surprised when the system treats them like terrorists.
>>1130626
With a universal wage, questions such as "did he blow up his money on crask" are useless. People who blow up their money on crask will become poor by choice and will not change the calculus unfairly, as the money they blew up was the one that was rightfully given to them by society. Now, they do whatever they want with it, but they still own the same thing as everyone else, as everyone else more or less gains the same thing.
Even if you worked 24/24 every day for your whole life, you could not justify gaining twice as much as someone who doesn't work at all.
>>1130649
Well, I meant, you couldn't justify gaining hundreds times more than anyone else.
>>1129173
Just because you can manipulate someone into slaving away for you for low money doesn't mean you should do it. This, in a nutshell, is why liberals hate on the rich.
Most business owners are selfish scum. And the poor too weak to realize they are being taken advantage of.
>>1130631
It's not about value of the market, it's about morals and justice. It's completely unfair and morally unjustifiable for anyone to own thousands of times what people in the majority own.
>>1130649
So enable people be worthless crack heads with money someone else worked for?
Good plan, let's see how many rich folks stay in your shit hole country while other countries offer them incentives to move. It happened to jobs after you liberal faggots got your hands on international trade agreements.
Seriously, the only people who would want to live in your ideal nation are poor people.
>>1130580
Nature abhors equality. Evolution, adaption, progression, and advancement of all life on Earth depends on variations in the species. Certain differences -- some small, some large -- allow the species to progress.
I'll give you a simple example based off your illustration of the 26 people. Assume that the cure for cancer can be discovered, but it requires the voluntary donation of 50,000,000. If our society followed your system of equality, it would require the concerted willpower of all 26 members of society to raise the necessary funds. Since that's virtually impossible given human nature, cancer continues to exist. However, if the unequal society, Person A merely has to decide to part with 10% of his wealth (with no real adverse effect on himself) and now cancer is cured.
So, which society survives in the long run? The unequal society. Meanwhile, the stagnant equal society dies a painful death of ass cancer. Nature is cruel, but you can't change her laws by wishing.
>>1130661
>not understanding a single thing I wrote
Its already hard enough to start a business. Now try to raise taxes or some shit and then see how it will play out for poor people who are dependant on business owners...
They view it differential then those who are not wageslaves, I may pay my staff a fair amount but they still do the bulk of the work while I just have good connections and the money to invest.
>>1130670
Give up your place to one of them then. Don't expect other people to live by your ideals cuck.
A must watch for libtards:
https://youtu.be/UGL-Ex1CD1c
>>1130667
Even if progress was impossible by collective means (and I don't think that's true; lots of people want cancer to be cured, so lots of people will do what they can to make it done, if survival and basic comfort are not an issue for them), it wouldn't matter. What's important in life is not progress. What's important in the end is to guarantee that everyone will have a good life. In the current system, 99% or people have a shitty life. It is NOT a price I'm ready to pay for progress.
>mfw I have eight figures to my name
Stay mad commie cucks. You will always ALWAYS be a poor faggot.
>>1130681
>so lots of people will do what they can to make it done
I though you were educated? Studies have shown that people do not act collectively for the collective good. They assume other people will sacrifice for the common good, but do not contribute themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game
>What's important in life is not progress.
Without the philanthropy of the extremely wealthy, human society would not have colleges or universities, let alone countless great works of art and music. Even the great philosophers of history -- on whose shoulders you stand -- were funded by wealthy patrons.
Stop being so simplistic in your thinking. You can't wish away the "bad" parts of society without thinking through the consequences. Someone who claims to have a masters degree should be much better at critical analysis than you've shown in this thread.
>>1130681
How old are you? You're naive as shit and a fucking idealist to boot.
Grow the fuck up. Nobody is ever going to take care of you loser.
>>1129249
>what is heritage
>>1130711
The results of these studies are caused by the fact that people who participated in them had a capitalistic (and therefore egoist and destructive) way of thought. We need people's minds to change, and people's minds WILL change when they live in a world where they don't have to work every day of their life for nothing, because they will live in a context where they don't have to be egoist to survive anymore.
>>1130661
>It's not about value of the market, it's about morals and justice. It's completely unfair and morally unjustifiable for anyone to own thousands of times what people in the majority own.
Life isn't fair.
>>1130727
It's everyone's duty to make it more fair.
>>1130729
Why?
>>1130730
Because he's a wimp.
>>1130730
Because that's the basic definition of morals. Everyone's duty is to act for the supreme Good. That's a very simple tautology.
>>1130733
Why does everyone need to follow that duty?
Why must we all act for your arbitrary definition of what the supreme Good is?
>>1130721
Why don't you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills first. You can't claim to be able to change human nature just by declaring it.
>>1130733
>morals
Subjective.
>>1130738
No. I just said that doing Good is what morals asks us. It is the very definition of "duty". So it IS everyone's duty to make what is Good.
Now, WHAT is good is a more complex question, obviously. But as "fair" is synonym of "just", and "just" a synonym of "good", we can easily assume that making life fair IS our duty.
>>1130745
I don't claim to change human nature. I claim that it is not human nature, just a social construct.
>>1130733
>He doesn't know that good/bad is merely a feeling elicited in humans upon considering various circumstances
Nigger please you're basically a hedonist.
>>1130750
>But as "fair" is synonym of "just", and "just" a synonym of "good", we can easily assume that making life fair IS our duty.
Seriously? Are you playing definition games and pretending its a valid logical argument? We're not babies here. Complex concepts are not equivalents just because they share common features. "Fair" is not the same as "just" is not the same as "good." Not to mention, you're conflating morality and duty, which are also separate concepts.
Hope your thesis advisor doesn't read 4chan. Your degree is awfully suspect.
>>1130758
By being that nihilistic, you simply admit being an enormous egoist. Fair enough, that's not an irrational philosophical choice, not any more than the others. But by admitting you only care about yourself, you show everyone else that indeed it is not in their interest nor in the interest of what they care about to follow your ideology.
>>1130760
We're on 4chan dude. I can't write books just for your beautiful eyes that I don't even see. Obviously my answers have to be simplifications. However, thanks for your concern, but my Sorbonne degree is totally legit. I was pretty much major in my promotion.
Now, to stop answering ad hominems. Sure, no exact synonym exist. But doing what is just is doing what is good, and vice versa. I use these words as synonyms, so if you don't understand them as such, then you simply don't understand what I'm saying. The same goes for "being moral", "acting morally", and "doing one's duty".
>>1130775
I understand what you're saying quite well. It's what makes it possible for me to see to logical errors in your argument. Your approach is logically unsound, simplistic, and insupportable. It's also a fairy tale considering that it goes directly contrary to human nature.
Philosophy without pragmatism is just shameless metal masturbation. Stop jerking off in public, kid.
As for the ad hominems, as you yourself note, this is 4chan. Get the sand out of your vagina.
>>1130787
Again, you're claiming that X is human nature, without proving it. There is not logical fallacy in simply claiming the contrary, so I do it: X is not human nature, it is just a social construct (and this explanation is perfectly sound for the results of the social experiments towards which you directed me). However, I don't just claim it, I also gave an argument, which is the following (let's repeat myself): the only reason people are egoist is because they live in a system in which it is necessary to survive, and because this world, as well as people like you, teach them to be egoist. So it is perfectly logical that people will be a bit less egoist once they don't have to fear for their well being (since in the system I propose, their well being will be guaranted by universal wages and will not require them to be egoist).
Also, it is our duty to do good (by definition), and "doing good" is automatically the same thing as "making the world better", since we are parts of the world. So making the world better is obviously our duty. Also, an injust world is NOT a good world, so the world will be better as soon as it is more just. So yea, it sounds perfectly logical to say that it is our duty to make the world more just. And when I said that it is our duty to make life more fair, it is EXACTLY what I meant.
>>1130775
>By being that nihilistic, you simply admit being an enormous egoist. Fair enough, that's not an irrational philosophical choice, not any more than the others. But by admitting you only care about yourself, you show everyone else that indeed it is not in their interest nor in the interest of what they care about to follow your ideology.
It's very much in peoples' interest to care only about themselves, I'm not asking them to care about me. Anyway I just think you make bad points.
>But as "fair" is synonym of "just", and "just" a synonym of "good", we can easily assume that making life fair IS our duty.
Like this. I could just as easily say that since the strong are superior to the weak, it is just for them to do as they please and take what they will, and since just is a synonym of good it is our duty to permit the strong to take what they please and do as they will.
>>1130806
But the strong are not superior to the weak. Sure, their strength is superior, but "might doesn't make right", as it is classicaly said. They are not superior as human beings, because strength is not what makes a human being superior. So, you see, the fact Justice and Good are synonyms isn't the problem here.
>>1130805
>it is our duty to do good
Your opinion.
>>1130815
>strength is not what makes a human being superior
Your opinion.
Your playbook is really thin and very obvious. You just assume whatever imperative statements support your end conclusion, and you summarily assume away any critical analysis. You're terrible at this.
>>1130815
>But the strong are not superior to the weak. Sure, their strength is superior, but "might doesn't make right", as it is classicaly said. They are not superior as human beings, because strength is not what makes a human being superior. So, you see, the fact Justice and Good are synonyms isn't the problem here.
-Justice and good are not synonyms, though many would argue that justice is good, you'd have a harder time arguing that all good things are just
-That the strong aren't superior is contentious, more a feel-good platitude than an argument. You'll probably get lots of people to agree to it by presenting some emotionally rousing hypothetical, but that proves nothing since emotions != reason, and the masses aren't the arbiter of truth.
Anything else?
>>1130824
>>1130825
>>it is our duty to do good
>Your opinion.
>-Justice and good are not synonyms, though many would argue that justice is good, you'd have a harder time arguing that all good things are just
"It is our duty to do good" is not my opinion, it is the fundamental definition of "good". Good is, precisely, what it is our duty to do. Also, being moral is, precisely (and again, by definition), doing anything we can to do good. These definitions are not opinions. They are the starting points of what I'm saying. I don't mean that they are premisses. I mean that these definitions are the way my words are supposed to be understood. When I say "good", you have to understand "what it is our duty to do". If you don't, then you don't understand what I'm saying, because you understand the word "good" in a different way than the one I intended, so you're thinking that I say A, when in fact I'm saying B. Now, I'm not saying that no other possible definition of the word "good", but, even though I have a hard time imagining a plausible case in which I would be unable to show that the definition of this word in fact also implies my definition, it really doesn't matter, since other definitions are not definitions that I'm using, nor definitions that have anything to do with my discourse. The same goes for "just" and "good", as explained here: >>1130805
>>strength is not what makes a human being superior
>Your opinion.
>-That the strong aren't superior is contentious (etc)
Yes, "strength is not what makes a human being superior" is an idea I didn't give any argument for. But I didn't need to, because that wasn't my point. My point was to show that your paralogism was not false because of the supposition that "good" and "just" are synonyms. And I did show that by pointing towards the real flaw in your paralogism. Now, indeed, we could talk about the links between strength and human superiority, but that would just be another question.
>>1130845
Strenght=superior faggot
>>1130845
>Good is, precisely, what it is our duty to do.
No it's not. A duty is an obligation placed upon us, by law, by society, by our elders, etc.
Good may be a moral imperative, but it's only a duty if you believe in God. Because only God can place moral obligations on you.
If you can't discuss philosophy without making an appeal to religious authority, then you've lost before you started.
By the way, not even everyone believes that good is a moral imperative. For some, the moral imperative stops at not doing bad (i.e., avoiding harm).
This stopped being fun several posts ago. You're just not skilled in making philosophical arguments, and all you do is assume your conclusions. And you're apparently incapable of admitting -- let alone correcting -- your flaws. If this was a cocktail party, I'd have walked away from you. I'll do the proverbial equivalent now. Buh-bye, idiot.
>>1130864
Ignoring the fact that you'll probably not answer this, I will still correct your enormous misinterpretations of what I'm saying.
>>Good is, precisely, what it is our duty to do.
>No it's not. A duty is an obligation placed upon us, by law, by society, by our elders, etc.
Again, it is not the definition I use for "duty". My duty is, exclusively, to do what is good. If law, society, or my elders ask me to do something bad, then, by my definition, it is NOT my duty to do it. With my words, my only duty is to do good, because "good" and "duty" mutually define themselves in my own language.
>If you can't discuss philosophy without making an appeal to religious authority, then you've lost before you started.
I never maked any appeal to religious authority. You think that my opinion depends on religious authority, but that's not the case. I'm not a religious person, even though I have a personal spirituality.
>Good may be a moral imperative, but it's only a duty if you believe in God. Because only God can place moral obligations on you.
No, it has nothing to do with God. The definition of duty, good and morals define themselves mutually. To act morally is, by definition, to act towards Good, to do one's duty. HOWEVER, it is true that nothing will make you do your moral obligations if you don't want to. You are entirely free to act in a non-good way.
>By the way, not even everyone believes that good is a moral imperative. For some, the moral imperative stops at not doing bad (i.e., avoiding harm).
If the moral imperative is to not be bad, then "not being bad" is, by definition of "moral imperative", Good itself. So yes, EVERYONE believes that good is a moral imperative.
>>1130881
Not that guy,
You can't just define words how you like faggot.
Anyway I'm not a nihilist, I feel morality similar to you. But, I don't delude myself into thinking I have a duty to give in to these feelings. This position is a moral extremism. Feelings are only a guide, and to take them at face value is short-sighted.
>>1130893
>You can't just define words how you like faggot.
Yes I can, everyone does because there is no other way. Again, as I explained here ( >>1130845
), there are other possible definitions for my words; BUT, if you don't understand my words through my own definitions, THEN you don't understand what I'm trying to express at all.
>Anyway I'm not a nihilist, I feel morality similar to you. But, I don't delude myself into thinking I have a duty to give in to these feelings. This position is a moral extremism. Feelings are only a guide, and to take them at face value is short-sighted.
This is so vague that I could say the same thing about myself.
>>1130659
>Just because you can manipulate someone into slaving away for you for low money doesn't mean you should do it. This, in a nutshell, is why liberals hate on the rich.
In other words, liberals hate human nature?
>>1130580
>Owning twice as many as someone that never works is the most you should be able to own by working all day long.
You're just setting yourself up for failure here. Intelligent people, who usually become rich, will simply crash your system, create a new system and continue building their wealth.
There is no incentive to innovate and work hard if an artificial wealth/income cap, made up by a marxist idiot, is in place. The end result of your society is poverty, misery and authoritarianism. The Soviet Union portrays your "utopia".
>>1131542
>I agree with Ayn Rand. Therefore her 1-dimensional book = human nature.
>>1130131
>>1129275
Trump did not receive any money from his father until he had already become a billionaire on his own
>>1131542
> Human nature = only considering the self
grow up faggot
